SAEDG Requests the Public’s input for Villages at Vigneto to move forward
Villages at Vigneto logo (courtesy El Dorado Holdings)
BENSON, ARIZONA — Things are stirring in Cochise County, as plans are being made and an upswing of Economic Development is on the horizon at the Villages at Vigneto moving forward with a reinstatement of the Clean Water Act.
The Southeast Arizona Economic Development Group (SAEDG) is requesting support for this project with a public petition to reinstate the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344) permit number 2003-00826-KAT (Villages at Vigneto). This Section 404, permit, was originally issued on June 21, 2006 by the Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regulatory Division.
Then on July 20, 2016 the Corps issued a “Notice of Permit Suspension” to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On October 6, 2017 the Corps publicly noticed their “Preliminary Review of Selected Factors” for 30 days for the public to respond and comment. Subsequently the Corps publicly noticed an extension of public comment period from November 4, 2017 to conclude on December 4, 2017.
The Villages of Vigneto will have a $24 billion positive economic impact and create 16,000 jobs in the region through build out. The development will sustain $1.2 billion in economic activity and 8,600 jobs every year thereafter. The development should be able to rely on the permit issued in 2006 for 20 years. The development; adheres to all regulatory requirements, meets water quality standards, does not impact any fish habitat, has initiated consultation for cultural resources, adequately mitigates impacted waters of the U.S., does not require an EIS, does not adversely affect any endangered species, and does not require a public hearing. The mitigation requirements originally issued for the project should not change.
ATTN: Kathleen Tucker: We the undersigned petitioners and residents of Benson, Cochise County, and Arizona support The Villages at Vigneto and petition to reinstate Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344) permit number 2003-00826-KAT (Villages at Vigneto).
The Deadline is December 4thfor comment.
If you have not done so already please send in your Letters of Support or sign the Petition before December 4th. It is important for us to show our support of this project as it will kick start positive economic growth in Cochise County and the surrounding areas. We are excited about what the future will bring in respect to the opportunities the Villages of Vigneto will bring.
Progress at The Villages at Vigneto Masterplan Benson AZ
The Villages at Vigneto logo (courtesy photo El Dorado Holdings)
El Dorado’s Masterfully Planned Community promises a “Whatever you want you can have” Lifestyle
BENSON, Arizona — A group of 70 business and government leaders from across southeast Arizona gathered Tuesday at the Cochise College in Benson for an update on The Villages at Vigneto residential and commercial masterplan project planned for northwestern Cochise County. The project is being developed by El Dorado Holdings, the company that spearheaded the growth of what is now the City of Maricopa.
Villages at Vigneto will be built along both sides of State Route 90 in Benson south of Interstate 10. The plan is for 28,000 homes, five golf courses, restaurants, shops, and more than two dozen activity centers and community facilities over a 20 year build out. Two-thirds of the project’s 13,000 acres are located on the east side of State Route 90
Mike Reinbold, development partner with El Dorado Holdings, estimated that it will take about 18 months for completion of horizontal construction such as roads and utilities after which vertical construction of homes and community facilities can begin. Reinbold said he is still confident that some homes will be on the market in 2018, a prediction he made in January at a meeting of the Southeastern Arizona Contractors Association.
During the March 14 meeting Reinbold also premiered a five minute video that overviews the project’s “Tuscan Territorial” concept. The video likens the Vigneto lifestyle to the American Dream, noting that “whatever you want you can have” within the Vigneto community.
Reinbold also updated the attendees about the Whetstone Ranch Canyons development located on the north end of El Dorado’s property. Approximately 50 homes were built by the previous developer with plans for a few hundred more. That project is being worked into El Dorado’s plans for Vigneto, according to Reinbold, and will concentrate on more family-style homes and amenities. New construction of homes at the Canyons could begin within 90 days once El Dorado breaks ground on Vigneto.
El Dorado has “the experience, financial strength, and will” to develop the Vigneto “lifestyle” project in a manner that is both environmentally responsible and water-wise, Reinbold explained. The Vigneto project has maintained a high level of community support, he noted, by addressing questions “with straight forward answers and facts.”
One pending issue for El Dorado is how quickly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will reinstate a Section 404 permit the agency put on hold last year. The permit was issued in 2006 for the now-defunct Whetstone Ranch project, which encompasses nearly three-fourths of El Dorado’s property.
A handful of environmental groups filed a lawsuit last May asking a federal judge to order the Corps to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure species protected under the Endangered Species Act “are not jeopardized and critical habitats are not adversely modified or destroyed” by development of Villages at Vigneto. Proceedings in the federal action have been stayed by Judge Cindy Jorgenson allow time for the consultation to take place between the Corps and FWS.
Reinbold, who is meeting with the Corps on a regular basis for updates, believes there is already “a change of federal government philosophy” since the new president was inaugurated.
While the Corps and FWS address the consultation, Reinbold says El Dorado is moving forward with final planning of the project’s first 750 acres. Engineers are on-site, utilizing a grid system in place across the property to digitally design the main Village Center, a recreation center, and the first home sites. However, Reinbold declined to comment about what steps would be taken if the Section 404 permit is not in hand by the time Vigneto’s engineering plan is approved by the City.
Meanwhile, Benson city manager Bill Stephens confirmed after the meeting that city staff is ready to review El Dorado’s final design and engineering plan for the first phase once it is submitted. “We are looking forward to the next step” said Stephens.
Reinbold encourages anyone interested in obtaining updates about Villages at Vigneto to sign up for email updates at www.vignetoaz.com.
Cochise County Sued After $10M Claim Rejected; Project Approval Delays Cited
Developer: County staff had previously confirmed that the Tentative Plat satisfied all of the County subdivision regulations
BENSON – On July 8, the developer of the planned J6 Ranch gated community west of Benson filed a civil lawsuit against Cochise County and its three board supervisors in a dispute about a 2015 vote that has stalled the 556-acre project.
The central issue of the 7-count complaint filed in Cochise County Superior Court and served on the county by property owner Easter Mountain Ranch LLC (EMR) is the interpretation of a condition the board added to a 2011 rezoning approval that requires EMR to provide public access to nearby federal lands.
The Superior Court came just two weeks after the board convened a special executive session to consider an agreement proposed by developer EMR that would have prevented court action while the County Attorney’s Office tried to resolve the access issue.
EMR’s property, which is located on the south end of J-Six Ranch Road, abuts the Coronado National Forest (CNR) on the north side of the Whetstone Mountains, in an area that has long been looked at for establishing public access.
After the board approved rezoning the property from RU4 to RU2 (allowing smaller lot sizes), county staff prepared an “Acceptance of Conditions” document that spelled out the terms of the condition. It reads “Prior to plat approval, the Applicant (Easter Mountain Ranch LLC) must provide either on-site or off-site multi-purpose (vehicle, pedestrian, equestrian, etc) legal access to federal lands.”
EMR and the county signed the document, which was then filed with the County Recorder’s Office. Since then, the developer has moved forward with plans for the first phase of the project, which includes lots 1-42. They also secured an easement from a nearby property owner that would allow for access to the CNF.
However, on July 14, 2015 the board denied EMR’s application for a subdivision tentative plat for those initial lots because the board was not satisfied with the developer’s forest access plan. A second easement proposal addressing the access requirement was also rejected by the county.
In a recent phone interview, EMR’s development manager Duff Hearon explained that EMR started planning the J6 Ranch project “a decade ago” and he has been frustrated by the drawn out process “which normally should only take two or three years.”
Without the board’s approval, the developer must redesign the entire project to include only 139 homes under the old zoning instead of 278 homes under the new zoning.
LAWSUIT SEEKS APPROVAL OF 278 HOME DESIGN, MONETARY DAMAGES
Hearon added that “we would have dropped our $10 million claim if the board had agreed to approve our plat,” and he points to the fact that he held off authorizing the lawsuit until a week prior to EMR’s one year deadline.
“We knew it will be costly for the county to defend, and the monetary damages could be devastating for the taxpayers, so we waited,” Hearon said. “But ultimately we had to preserve our rights and protect our partners.”
Britt Hanson, the county’s chief civil deputy attorney, confirmed that his office will handle the civil lawsuit because “our insurer doesn’t cover liability for land-use decisions.”
According to the complaint, the county’s July 2015 denial of EMR’s proposed plat was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” It adds that the developer has “spent considerable time, effort, resources and money” to ensure “complete compliance” and has “satisfied and fulfilled all of the requirements” of the rezoning conditions.
The complaint also alleges violations of the Arizona Property Rights Protection Act that have caused the developer significant financial costs and future losses. If the case goes to trial, EMR will ask the jury to award “actual and consequential” monetary damages, as well as attorneys fees and other costs.
In addition to financial damages, EMR is seeking an order from judge Wallace Hoggatt that the county approve the tentative plat so the developer can move forward with lots 1-42, and an order providing EMR an extension of any deadlines they face on the project.
OFFER TO RESOLVE DISPUTE FILED IN JANUARY, REJECTED IN FEBRUARY
“We have been trying in good faith to resolve the forest access for a very long time,” explained Hearon, adding that the board is requiring a level of public access not specified in the signed 2011 agreement.
In Jan. of this year, EMR submitted a notice of claim to the board clerk seeking $10 million in damages to resolve the dispute. That figure, according to Easter Mountain attorney Steven Lenihan, represents lost profits for building only 139 homes and other costs the developer has occurred, including attorney fees.
A notice of claim is required under state law before a public entity can be sued.
The county rejected EMR’s claim in Feb., but emails released by the county attorney’s office reveal efforts have been ongoing for months to identify potential routes that could satisfy the board’s interpretation of the 2011 access condition.
THE HOLD-UP: APPROVED PUBLIC ROUTE TO NATIONAL FOREST
Those emails show Hanson of the county attorney’s office has been in frequent contact with Arizona Game and Fish Dept. and US Forest Service to work toward a deal for an easement on land owned by El Dorado Holdings, the developer of the 12,000 acre Villages at Vigneto project in Benson.
That property abuts the east side of the Whetstone Mountains and could provide an access road off State Route 90 that would eventually connect to existing Coronado National Forest roads.
As recently as June 2, Hanson advised top county officials that “it looks as though the forest access issue is going to be resolved, with the County, Game and Fish and the Forest Service working with Mike Reinbold (El Dorado).”
Included in that email was a communication from Matt Walton of AZGF stating “a feasible route” had been identified and was currently “under review by El Dorado.” That route was flagged by USFS road manager Walt Keyes after several stakeholders took a walking tour of the property to look at access options.
District 3 supervisor Richard Searle, who represents the J-Six and Benson area, shared the June 2 update with EMR, which Hearon says is another reason he held off as long as possible before filing the court action.
“We kept hearing from the county that ‘we’re close’ to a resolution, but without clear communication we are left with no option but to move forward with a lawsuit,” he explained.
“STOP THE CLOCK” PROPOSAL REJECTED
While Hanson continued working toward a deal for CNF public access via El Dorado Holdings, the statute of limitations clock continued to tick for Easter Mountain Ranch. Under Arizona law, a party normally has a deadline of one year from the date damages first occur in order to file a court action.
With the one year anniversary of the July 14, 2015 vote approaching, Lenihan proposed a tolling agreement with the county. A tolling agreement is a legal maneuver that freezes the statute of limitations clock, allowing parties additional time to resolve issues or disputes without worrying about the calendar.
If a resolution cannot be worked out during the tolling period, the amount of days the agreement was in place does not count toward the deadline for filing a lawsuit.
Chief (civil division) deputy county attorney Hanson originally turned down the tolling agreement but the matter was later considered by the board in a special meeting on June 21. Although minutes of the executive session are not public, Hanson explained that the county declined “to sign the tolling agreement because we think the lawsuit has no merit.”
With the developer’s one year clock winding down and no tolling agreement in place, Hearon said he authorized legal action as a “last resort.”
When asked about the decision to forego the tolling agreement, supervisor Searle replied that he is prevented by state law from commenting on the matter. He referred any questions to Hanson, who responded that “nothing has changed” from the county’s previous position that EMR’s claims are without merit.
The county has until Aug. 1 to file an answer to EMR’s complaint.
